[members-discuss] Technical solution to resolve the IPv4 Exhaustion problem and to add more 4, 294, 967, 296 IPv4 addresses that are needed in the world

Hi All,

I think it is appropriate to close this discussion here.
Elad will eventually submit his proposed al RIPE meeting or he'll write a
RFC.

In the meantime we can reread these one from 1994 and one from 1998 :)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1726
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460

have nice sunday

br1


On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:32 AM Christian Kratzer <ck at cksoft.de> wrote:

> Hi Elad,
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Elad Cohen wrote:
> > Christian,
> >
> > I'm sorry to write, but you didn't understand how IPv4+ works. And
> everything that you wrote regarding IPv4+ is completely incorrect.
>
> Everything about IPv4+ is completely inpractical.
>
> > "There is no connectivity between IPv4 and IPv4+" - IPv4+ is IPv4, exact
> same protocol.
> >
> > "you would need routers to support 33 bit routes which is not going to
> happen" - This is completely incorrect, route bits are exactly the same.
>
> The ip address is the clients identity. That is how it is routed. Routing
> cannot route ipv4 and ipv4+ packets to different destinations because
> packets are routed by the destination address only.
>
> So while the core networks would transpart packets between LIR the LIR
> themselves would not be able to route packets to different clients.
>
> > "To enable a client to connect to both the IPv4 and IPv4+ internet it
> seems to me that you would need at least another address family in the
> socket protocols which is also a massive overhead.  The formatting of the
> address as two 16 bit values instead of four 8 bit values does not fix the
> issue in the clients ipv4 stack." - No another address family is needed,
> the source address and destination are exactly in the four bytes each as
> they are now - the only difference is the application layer in the
> operating system - based if the single reserved bit flag is on or off - the
> ip address will be displayed with one dot (IPv4+) or with three dots (IPv4).
>
> The string represenation of the address is not the criteria how existing
> socket api work.  The api work internally with 32 bit values.  There is no
> formatting in them.
>
> > "You cannot route ipv4 and ipv4+ in the same global internet if they are
> two seprate networks and if the addresses mean different things depending
> on arbitrary address bits." - It is the same network, IPv4 (I'm calling it
> IPv4+ to represent the one-dot addressing to higher application layers, but
> it is the same IPv4 packets, same IPv4 network)
>
> You can only have more addresses if you add bits to the addresses.
>
> > I'm not against IPv6, IPv6 and IPv4 will always co-exist in some way,
> IPv4+ brings more ip addresses to IPv4, it doesn't disturb a bit IPv6.
>
> it breaks ipv4.
>
> Greetings
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Kratzer                   CK Software GmbH
> Email:   ck at cksoft.de               Wildberger Weg 24/2
> Phone:   +49 7032 893 997 - 0       D-71126 Gaeufelden
> Fax:     +49 7032 893 997 - 9       HRB 245288, Amtsgericht Stuttgart
> Mobile:  +49 171 1947 843           Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Kratzer
> Web:     http://www.cksoft.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/br1%40br1.com
>


-- 
Bruno 'br1' Cordioli
www.br1.com
br1 at br1.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20200426/b22adc31/attachment.html>